[opendtv] Re: TV Programmers Put Subscriber Caps on Skinny Bundles | Media - Advertising Age

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 01:48:26 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

In both cases, the problem is the same - appointment TV is dying,

Even more irrelevant.

Hardly. People are not watching these new channels in any significant
numbers.

I am torn between saying "false," and saying "everyone already knows that
nothing needs to be seen 'live.'" That's why it's irrelevant. This is another
one of those points to continue to gravitate back to, again and again. This TV
network material is available on demand, either from the MVPD VOD, from an
in-home or in-system DVR, or over the Internet. Same material. Watching it
"live" is not necessary, Craig.

When I watch prime time TV, I always watch on demand (for years and years), and
the ads come right along with it. If I use the PVR, which I rarely do now, I
get to see the ads even if in FF. You can still see what they are, and you can
still slow down if it's something new or interesting. Online, the ads are
embedded, and thankfully the breaks are shorter than OTA.

But it's still the same TV network material, Craig. The fact that people might
not be watching it "live" changes nothing.

I don't even watch this crap, so I am not getting yanked around.

Of course you are, Craig. That's why you keep complaining about "oligopoly."
You feel powerless at the rates your walled-in TV addiction forces you to pay,
you feel the need to blame some fictitious "oligopoly." And, to add insult to
injury, you don't even understand the options available to you. For the longest
time, you insisted "will never happen." Amazing.

It is when there are only five major content companies that
control more than 90% of what we watch.

"Only" five? Compared with the ONE company you are totally beholden to, Craig?

On the other hand, the cost for TV content keeps increasing at
rates significantly higher than inflation. This is possible
because the public puts up with it,

Because YOU put up with it, Craig. Options are available to YOU, but you prefer
to remain the loyal subject, obediently behind garden walls, where competition
from the content sources is understandably limited, and collusion therefore
encouraged. If you complain that your head hurts, why not stop banging it
against the wall?

While this may be true, it also enables the entrenched
"competitors."

I have NO PROBLEM with that. As long as you remove the single gatekeeper, which
distorts the market, these incumbents can and do compete head to head. As it
should be. You seem to not understand that successful incumbents may very well
remain successful, even if they can now compete better than they used to.

Obviously, the technology behind Internet distribution of content
scales well, but is not free.

As opposed to ...?

Buying time on a satellite to distribute your content.

Huh? Do you think there's something religiously improper about using satellite
to distribute TV content to ISPs nationwide? Did I not already question your
assertion that concerning the "WAN"? I already asked you, Craig, how do cable
systems distribute their on demand content NOW? And what makes you think that
ISPs can't do the same, for on demand or live content?

It now handles about 5% of TV viewing. It cannot handle 25%, or 50%,

It ALREADY IS handling that much, Craig. I showed you the stats. Did you
forget? Another example of being really late to the party, eh Craig? Once
again, SUBSTANTIATE your claims, that "the Internet" can't handle the load.
Don't make things up and expect anyone to just believe.

Sling allows the cord cutters to get 20 channels at a fraction of
the price of the fat bundles.

Among OTT sites, Sling happens to be quite expensive. Why? ESPN, of course.
Cord cutters who don't want ESPN may well want to look elsewhere.

Uhhhh Bert. All of those services are behind pay walls.

Uuuh, Craig. You really need to take an economics course at your community
college. All those direct to viewer sports channels represent many competing
"walls," not a single monopoly. They all have to compete. The guy who likes
only football is not forced to also pay for basketball, hockey, baseball, or
the weekly PTA meetings. What about this do you still not get, Craig? Competing
sites still have to compete, even if they are by subscription.

Bert



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2015